Posted on 01/21/2019 12:25:55 PM PST by research99
Monday, January 21, 2019, California Senator Kamala Devi Harris announced her candidacy for the 2020 Presidential election.
Outstanding questions pertaining to her candidacy include her eligibility for this office. The US Constitution specifies only a "natural born" US citizen may hold this post. Definitions of that term, according to the intent of the writers of the Constitution, as well as some later court rulings, indicate this means "born to two US citizen parents." The requirement was intended so that only someone with undivided loyalties to the US, someone not with possible divided loyalties to other nations, could assume the title of commander-in-chief of our armed forces.
No, she is not going to be ruled a British citizen. She was born in California and the law of the land long before she was born was that she is a citizen.
………………………………………………………
There is a world of difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen “ as the Constitution demands. BOTH of her parents must be US Citizens at the time of her birth in addition to her birth on US soil in order to be a NBC.
I guess I am a troll then. She was born to two foreigners.
There are law libraries in every town, and I have no desire to head down this particular rabbit hole with you, especially given the contradictory nature of being angry about anchor babies being a talking point while people like you try to negate that by pretending that this is an issue. No. Far more likely than this being a thing is her people trying to make it a controversy to score points in a Democratic primary.
Jamaica became independent in 1962. India in 1947. Harris was born in 1964. So whatever else she is, it’s unlikely that she is a British citizen. She could not apply for a British passport since neither her parents nor her grandparents were residents of the UK home islands.
TBH, I think natural born Citizenship is the least of our problems right now.
The left are out of control. The courts are totally corrupt. Our fed govt is irreparably corrupt and illegitimate.
We’re headed for a hard reset.
Incorrect. The writers of the Constitution had no such intent by using that phrase. That's a Birther myth. And there are no relevant court rulings saying it means that either.
Courts interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution changes through amendment, it may be up to the courts to determine what the amendment means. It is probably up to the courts to determine what “natural born citizen” means, if there is a conflict about that.
Heck, she even announced on MLking day as an ironclad guarantee she was bonafide!
“Courts interpret the Constitution”
I wasn’t aware it needed interpreting. It needs to be farking upheld, enforced and followed.
Staggers the imagination.
We would do well to keep it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amen.
Surprising how many want to throw it away.
“Doesn’t matter. The founders didn’t write the 14th Amendment.”
The 14th has nothing to do with the natural born citizen clause.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
None the less, the ever so humble reset and solution to all of our messes is the Constitution and the rule of law.
Redefining our definitions in the socialist mold, without challenge, is why we now have a socialist problem.
We, those born since WWII, knew better and we let it happen here, in spite of our sacrifices “over there”.
Thanks for clearing that up.
They have already ruled several times as to the definition of “natural born citizen.” Obama should be invalidated. NO NEED to make the same mistake twice.
and this went through in the 1800’s
…………………………………………………………
WHAT went through in the 1800’s? If you are speaking of the 14th Amendment, it has nothing to do with being eligible for the presidency. The 14th deals with making former slaves “whole” persons.
Agreed, but you know if a case somehow made it to the SCROTUS solely about NBC, it would not be ‘ruled’ on correctly because of the O’muslim usurper, Barry Hussein Osama.
Kamala moved to Canada at age 7 and graduated from high school in Canada. Did her mother and her become Canadian citizens?
“She was born in California and the law of the land long before she was born was that she is a citizen.”
Then why did the American Indians have to have a ruling, or law, in the twenties that made them a citizen?
The birthright citizenship now pushed is opposite of what the 14th amendment plainly says.
And you can be a citizen of the country and still not be a natural born citizen, something our birther Founding Fathers stipulated.
Because the Constitution has been ignored one time does not allow the Constitution to be forever changed. THIS TIME there WILL BE A BIG STINK about persons who are not eligible.
Shut up. You are wrong
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.